christian counter-arguments?

[EndUnknown]

Originally Posted by dead jim

seriously, pick up something like kenneth miller's Finding Darwin's God.

im needing some reading material. I'll look that up. any other evolution books you suggest? Christian and non. I want to hear both views.


EDIT: and i should have said Atheism, not evolution.

[David]

Originally Posted by rock4christ

actually hes right. science just disproves things, and science chooses what it deems most likely.

I love science, specifically chemistry, and the only thing in science i disagree with is evolution, it just doesn't seem likely to me.

science is more than just something that disproves something else.

chemistry is a science. It's a fact that a hydrocarbon and oxygen will combust and creat heat. It proves that fire comes from wood and oxygen mixing in a little pool of energy.

Don't you beleive that carbon dioxide comes from fuel exhaust? It's science, and non of it is mentioned in the bible. Or, did God not want us to know why smoke comes out of the back of cars?

Humans are made from cells, cells are made from molecules, molecules are made from atoms. Isn't that true? it doesn't disprove anything.

I don't think that if god was infinate, and all powerful he would need to make us out of atoms.

Maybe atoms are just a tool that the Devil uses to make us come over to the dark side...

I just don't understand why God would make all this stuff so easy to explain with out him if he wanted us to think he existed.

The only thing that can't be explained about why we are here is where the ball of mass came from. So science couldn't explain that. Does that make everything else false, everything that is proven absolutly true? Does the fact that they can't explain where a ball of mass came from really need to be the basis of this argument? Also, where did god come from?

If a ball of mass needs an origin then why doesn't God? Where did God come from? why is he here? is it really a man? a woman? a hermaphrodite? Did God make himself? Maybe God doesn't need an origin. He doesn't need a reason to be here. He's just here, he didn't come from anything, he was just born.

Well, The ball of mass doesn't need a reason, it's just There, it didn't come from anywhere either. Maybe it's infinate. Maybe there's still mass coming from the spot where the universe started.

But I know this, EVERYTHING is made from atoms. EVERYTHING that is alive needs energy. I also know that the reason we think is because electical impulses move from cell to cell within our brain. Science can or has explained every question I have except for one. Just one question. How is one question enough to disprove anything. There are a lot of reasons to not beleive in the Bible.

But don't think that I don't like Christianity, I'm listening to christian music right now, I like Chistians, I like their views on how life should be lived. I agree that people shouldn't murder others and steel their stuff. But I don't think that God created the universe.

i'm not going to proofread this... so sorry for any mistakes.

I did proofread this... so whatever... i'm not sorry for any mistakes.

[EndUnknown]

i dont disagree with ANY of the science you mentioned, but that doesn't disprove God at all, just shows how he does things. He chose atoms, so be it. I think God is a science nerd, i mean, he MADE the laws of physics

[David]

lol nice response. I like that.

I don't think that it's fair that God doesn't need an origin, but a ball of mass does.

Also, evolution is a series of small mutations in a speicies. Selective breading is the cause. For example. A dog is better at smelling something than other dogs, so it finds food faster, and gets to spend more time mating than the other dogs, so his DNA (with a better nose) is more abundant. it takes a while, but all the dogs are good at smelling for food.

There are also other things that help prove evolution: fossils, birds with a little variety of traits that help them preform specific tasks, the fact that the early stages of an embryo for all vertebrates look the same. The fact that the bones of animals can be matched with other species. There are plenty more bits of evidence for evolution. I don't know all of them, and can't think of some.

Some people might think that God intended for us to evolve... but that woulnd't make sense Adam and Eve were people just like us.

That's one of the things that science has proven wrong. Adam and Eve, there are no fossils that show any evidence of there only being one type of human thoughout the ages. There are only fossils that show how humans evolved from ape-like creatures. and how the mokeys and great apes that we see today came from the same ape-like creature.

There're also fossils that show how whales and dolfins came from a dog-like animal.

You can't tell me that there weren't cave men who didn't look like us, and drew cave paintings on the walls. You can't be serious when you say that evolution doesn't exist. you can see it for yourself. Just go to a museum and look at some of the evidence yourself.

[EndUnknown]

thanks

your referring to the completely fraudulent embryo drawings of Haeckel aren't you?

and i guess i can kinda agree on the dog thing. microevolution i can believe in, but us ultimately coming from a single celled organism who happened to come into existence because the right proteins happened to link up, just doesn't make sense to me.(correct me if my info is wrong)

[David]

I don't know what drawings you're talking about..... I also said imvertabrate, I meant to say vertabrate. sorry about that. but yeah, it is true the early satages of the ebryo for vertabrates are very very very similar.

you're right about the whole single celled organism thing.... it's very unlikely to happen, but it's not impossible.

one theory of how it happend it that a bolt of lightning created a single celled organism after it hit the water.

that theory is possible. It has even been re-created in a lab. they hit the water with a man made bolt of lightning and a cell was made. The water had the same chemistry of the water in the pre-historic days that they though life started in.

But yeah like I said, it works. cingle celled organisms can be created from lightning hitting the pre-historic water. I'm not sure but maybe if the right molecules just happen to be near each other at the right time a cell can be made.

Also, if the single celled organism was made from something like lightning, or just by luck, then there were probably a lot of single celled organisms being made.

This is where the theory of selective breading comes in. it's not breading, but it's close. The cells that could survive, lived. The cells that could live, and could multiply lived longer than the cells that could only live. the cells that could work together in order to gather energy lived longer than the last cells I spoke of. The cells that worked together better than the last lived longer. Later on in time, cells worked together very well. The cells started to have specific jobs. There were creatures like jelly fish roaming around the earth. The jelly fish kept on evolving and formed fins and bones and blah blah blah blah. Fish and crustations were formed. Fish slowly became better and crustations became better. blah blah blah blah. The fish stated to leave the water in search of something to eat. Also to hide from the Crustations that hunted them. Blah blah blah. Amphibians were formed. blah blah Next came lizards and other stuff. blah blah blah

I don't know everything about the origins of all animals so i'm gunna stop.

but yeah, when you think of how long all this took to happen, it really doesn't seem that unlikely to happen.

I mean, if there was a timeline of life on earth... Humans and dinosours wouldn't even be uncluded on the line, because we weren't here long enough. Most of the time spent with life was with the single celled organisms, because they took so long to evolve.

Think if it like a lot of micro evolution. A whole lot of micro evolution. It happens in stages, and it takes a lot of stages to even see a small diference in something. There is no other type of evolution There's only micro evolution. It just took a lot of micro evolution of make what you see today. And the reason you see it today is because there have been so many different types of single celled organisms. One of the single cells was bound to make something eventually.




I looked up those drawings.... they don't look perfect, but they're by no means fraudulant. Look up some google images of vaious embryos of different vertabrates. You can see for your self. I looked up a cat and then a dolphin. They were very similar.

also, the fact that you think those drawings are fraudulant proves to me that you are close minded and not willing to accept a truth, regardless of how it effects you.

It shows me that you don't want to accept that evolution exists. I, on the other hand, am perfectly willing to accept that God created the earth, and Jesus was his son, and died for our sins. I just don't that's the way the universe was made. But if I'm wrong, I can live with that.

[dead jim]

Originally Posted by rock4christ

im needing some reading material. I'll look that up. any other evolution books you suggest? Christian and non. I want to hear both views.


EDIT: and i should have said Atheism, not evolution.

i've already made some suggestions about atheism. as far as the evolution stuff goes, you can check out miller's book, but, for a general understanding, donald johansen's Blueprints is ok. you should also check out richard dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker and dan dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea. the former is a lot of science with a little philosophy, and the latter is a lot of philosophy with a little science. once you get that under your belt, you can check out behe's Darwin's Black Box. you might recognize behe as one of the big names in the intelligent design movement.
if you read any of that stuff, read it carefully. try not to bring your preconceptions of what they're talking about with you. pay attention to what they say and what they don't say.

[EndUnknown]

It has even been re-created in a lab. they hit the water with a man made bolt of lightning and a cell was made. The water had the same chemistry of the water in the pre-historic days that they though life started in.

im assuming your going off the Miller-Urey experiment. those conditions are not what the 'privative earth' is thought to have been, based on modern science. it reflects the 1950's science view of early earth, not modern views.

[David]

I don't know whos expreiment it was, but I saw it on either the history or discovery channel. The show didn't look like it was too old, I'm not sure if they used the same tech as they did in the 1950's though.

But if they could make a cell back in the 50's it seems very likely that we could do it nowadays.

as for the whole thing about the water in the old experiment not being right... I don't know. Maybe they cheated a little and added some stuff that wasn't suposed to be in there in order to make a cell easier. But it still doesn't prove the experiment is flawed. Maybe The right chemicals were in the right spot at the right time like you said. Maybe we just got really lucky.

I just think it's more likely that we were created by chance than being created by God.

I look at it this way. We were either Made by something that has no explanation (God), or we were created by pure luck (evolution and big bang).

Like I said before, it's not fair that the big bang needs an origin but God doesn't.

Also, I think that religion was created as a primative form of government, so..... I don't buy into this whole God thing...

[marioporter]

You guys are going about this the wrong way. Science is fallable, sure. But scientific priciples can be demstrated on a daily basis. The real case against Chirstianity comes from the Bible itself. The gospels don't even corroborate themselves. They can't agree on the names of the apostles, how many people and who were exactly at the supposed ressurection. Also, it's well known that 6 of the Pauline letters are forgeries. If this is the word of God, it's shabby work.

As matter of fact, I laid this out in my blog not too long ago.

http://andthenhesaidwhat.blogspot.com

[Trogdor]

the title of your blog is called deconstructing the faith
and thats where i already think,
faith is the basis of not only Christianity but it is what everyone has the basis of their beliefs on. now you may already be saying faith is not part of my life at akk but you do indeed have faith in atheism believing that what you think is correct just like christianity. now you may be thinking why is this guy proving himself wrong saying christianity is all faith no proof because my faith in Jesus isnt based on having every fact laid in front of me. And yes i believe the bible is infailible God-breathed and true so with my Faith from my experiences seeing Christ acted out in my life that He is real and He did die and did rise. Faith isnt the center of Christianity you see Christ is the center.

[marioporter]

"And yes i believe the bible is infailible God-breathed and true so with my Faith from my experiences seeing Christ acted out in my life that He is real and He did die and did rise. Faith isnt the center of Christianity you see Christ is the center."

You interpret that Christ has acted out in your life because that's what you've been taught when there is usually a perfect logical explanation for it. You say that it's the infallable word of God? Then explain to me why the Gospels don't agree on the names of the desciples, or the details of the ressurection. Faith in Christ is at the center of Christianity. You don't KNOW, and that's the thing, KNOWING. You have faith because you weren't there. The Bible is indeed flawed. There's no two ways about it. So, if you want to believe that it's infallible, that's on you. But it's clear that the "apostles" can't even get their story straight.

[dead jim]

Originally Posted by trogdor

the title of your blog is called deconstructing the faith
and thats where i already think,
faith is the basis of not only Christianity but it is what everyone has the basis of their beliefs on. now you may already be saying faith is not part of my life at akk but you do indeed have faith in atheism believing that what you think is correct just like christianity. now you may be thinking why is this guy proving himself wrong saying christianity is all faith no proof because my faith in Jesus isnt based on having every fact laid in front of me. And yes i believe the bible is infailible God-breathed and true so with my Faith from my experiences seeing Christ acted out in my life that He is real and He did die and did rise. Faith isnt the center of Christianity you see Christ is the center.

if one has no evidence for God, why would that person require faith to believe there was no God? what exactly do you think 'faith' means?

[Trogdor]

"And yes i believe the bible is infailible God-breathed and true so with my Faith from my experiences seeing Christ acted out in my life that He is real and He did die and did rise. Faith isnt the center of Christianity you see Christ is the center."

You interpret that Christ has acted out in your life because that's what you've been taught when there is usually a perfect logical explanation for it. You say that it's the infallable word of God? Then explain to me why the Gospels don't agree on the names of the desciples, or the details of the ressurection. Faith in Christ is at the center of Christianity. You don't KNOW, and that's the thing, KNOWING. You have faith because you weren't there. The Bible is indeed flawed. There's no two ways about it. So, if you want to believe that it's infallible, that's on you. But it's clear that the "apostles" can't even get their story straight.

I am curious why if you think existence is coincidence and you believe the Bible is flawed. Why would you try to make me believe the same if there is no eternity from your perspective. I am honestly curious does it satisfy some need you have? I know God is real and if He wasnt my brother who had a terminal case of Leukimia wouldnt be breathing now. I dont need someone elses opinions on the likeliness of the Bible like you most likely dont need or want my opinion, but I state it anyway, mostly from boredom.

[marioporter]

Originally Posted by trogdor

I am curious why if you think existence is coincidence and you believe the Bible is flawed. Why would you try to make me believe the same if there is no eternity from your perspective. I am honestly curious does it satisfy some need you have? I know God is real and if He wasnt my brother who had a terminal case of Leukimia wouldnt be breathing now. I dont need someone elses opinions on the likeliness of the Bible like you most likely dont need or want my opinion, but I state it anyway, mostly from boredom.

Since you brought it up, I'll go with the example of your brother. Someone in India may have attributed that to Vishnu. Buddhists may have atrributed it to good Karma. Jews to Yaweh, and Muslims to Allah. Just because he had a "terminal" case of leukimia (which apparently it wasn't because he's breathing now) doesn't mean Jesus swooped down from heaven to intervene on his behalf.

And, the reason I would try to convince you of the same is to save you from the tired dogma that has bound human beings for at least the past two thousand years, from a Christian perspective. I still haven't heard you stand up for the Bible yet. Upon scrutiny, the Bible has never, and will never stand up. I know you probably fall back on the same thing that all Christians do, that there is no place for logic in the Bible, or I just have to have faith. Of course I have to have those things if I'm to swallow what the Church would have me swallow.

For example, the prophecy that is tied to the messiah in Isaiah 7:14:

14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel."

This is pointed to as one of the signs of the coming messiah, who just so turned out to be Jesus. Nowhere there, in the New Revised Standard Edition of the Bible (accepted by scholars as the most accurate translation of the Bible) does it say anything about her being a virgin. Yet, in other translations of the Bible, the words "young woman" is replaced with "virgin". In the orignial Hebrew, the phrase is "young woman". This mistranslation happened when the Bible was translated to Greek. So, now you have this prophecy that had to come true. So what did they do? They made Mary a virgin. Let me ask you a question: How many virgins do you know with 6 kids (at least)?

I don't bring this up for any other reason than for you to understand that the Bible is the word of man put on the lips of God. All you would have to do is read scholarly books on the Bible instead of blindly accepting whatever dogma is regurgitated by your clergy.

[Trogdor]

Now I am extremely confused you day the Bible is false then you recite it back to me. if I may dare to say when arguing about a subject for example: Communism(Best Example I could think of not that I have ever debated the subject) you dont read the Communists manifesto back at the communist saying its False after reading to them what they believe is true.
Next on the topic of Leukemia to put this bluntly, my brother by science should be dead. He shouldn't wake up every morning. He does. Doctors said it was a miracle. It was. I trust what they said is 100% truth and I trust my life in their hands. I am telling you now if you really want to prove that this, everything, all anyone has ever known is fake. You won't have a chance to sway me.

2 Corinthians 12:19 (New American Standard Bible)
19All this time you have been thinking that we are defending ourselves to you. Actually, it is in the sight of God that we have been speaking in Christ; and all for your upbuilding, beloved.

I will not be replying on this thread any longer due to my abcense this summer.
-Trogdor